Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday June 15, 2009 @03:07PM
from the better-faster-stronger dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot tells CNBC that he believes the next generation of video game systems isn't as far away as the public has been led to believe. Guillemot noted that public demand for the best machine possible, as well as coming competition from companies such as OnLive could spur Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to roll out new systems sooner than they want. That's not good news for publishers, though, as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create."

Enter the Wii Motion Plus. Check out these Youtube Wii Motion Plus Vids. [youtube.com] The motions no longer seem limited for the games that support this new device.
Natal might start to get annoying as it seems you have to get scanned before each game.

I actually think Project Natal will just come straight to the next xbox. I mean:- Any of the previous games dont support it- Its peripheral you have to buy separately - not everyone are going to buy it, so the games need to support 'normal' players too, so cant concentrate just for the Project Natal.- Xbox360 is old and its successor will probably come soon anyways- Its just way better idea to start from a clean table like Wii did. EyeToy was also an peripheral to PS2.

He seems to overlook the fact that the most popular console is the weakest machine, and its popular games (Wii Fit, Wii Sports...) are simple enough that I am not sure how they could benefit from a hardware upgrade beyond input devices. Add to that the motion-control expansions for all the consoles and you have consoles with longer life than usual. Add in the fact that PC gaming tends to work better for the big-ticket games that push performace, and I see no reason why a console maker or game publisher would care to start a new cycle already (I'll leave it to other comments to provide reasons for Ubisoft to want this).

How could the Eye Toy possibly have 3D recognition with only one "eye" ?

With that 3D recognition, nearly perfect movement tracking (even in the dark, with people walking between you and the device), exact player recognition, all those 70 strategic points of the body tracked in real-time, and real 3D head-tracking perspective implemented in games, you actually can do much more than what the Eye Toy would ever be able to do...

What the Eye Toy basically did was play with the visual effects that a moving object can produce in a video... That's pretty much it.

But seriously, why would I want to stand/sit with my leg in an awkward position when I could just hold "A" instead? For the same reason my Wii is also collecting dust.

Because getting off your ass to play is fun. Especially in a multiplayer party-type environment (especially with a couple of beers) - The kind of casual gaming environment the Wii targets.

I know this is slashdot and we're all supposed to jump on the "moving is hard" bandwagon, but come on. I've been playing Wii with my young kids pretty much since it came out and it certainly has yet to get old for us. It's even fun with adult friends/family over. Pumping your arms up and down to pretend to run, depending on who you're playing with, can be much more satisfying than holding down "A".

Don't know much about the Eye Toy stuff, but I do appreciate that there are efforts to innovate controls beyond the "Hold B to run fast" mentality of Super Mario Brothers.

We've seen this wash/spin/rinse/repeat cycle in the movie industry for the past few decades.

Exactly. And it has worked. I don't see the President bailing out Dreamworks.

Now, a show of hands: how many of you spent full price to go see the Tom Cruise movie where he plays the nazi with the eye-patch? How many of you saw Superbad? Which one did you like better?

And which of those films earned more? Answer: Valkyrie, at $200M to Superbad's $170M. This isn't to diminish the success of Superbad or mediocrity of Cruise, but to simply point out studios will go where the money is, and high-budget Cruise films are a consistent money earner, whereas $20M Superbads are very hit and miss.

Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us?

Because they have done so consistently in the past.

Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?

I think they would rather spend less and charge less than the alternative. Much less risk that way.

100 million to produce a video game... They really believe all their customers are morons.

No. They believe that the game will earn around a billion dollars.

A major commercial and critical success, Grand Theft Auto IV broke industry records with sales of around 3.6 million units on its first day of release and grossing more than $500 million in revenue in the first week, from an estimated 6 million units sold worldwide.[22][23] As of 11 March 2009, the game has sold over 13 million copies.[24] Grand Theft Auto IV received overwhelmingly positive reviews, becoming one of the highest-rated games of all-time on aggregated review websites such as MobyGames and TopTenReviews.[25][26]